I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

If Long finds the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary at the end of the season, I hope he consults someone who is good at spotting coaching talent for a replacement. That is definitely not his strong suit.

hogcard1964

If Long finds the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary at the end of the season, I hope he consults someone who is good at spotting coaching talent for a replacement. That is definitely not his strong suit.

I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

Spot on Wilson. Spot on. There is NO reason we can't win 7-9 games a year and, twice a decade, have a shot at a SEC title when the classes align right and do it all without cheating at Ole Miss levels.

I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

HDN did what he did on the back of two athletic freaks, MJ and Dmac.

Everyone can keep ignoring it, but the one constant as long as I can remember, which is about 1975, is the teams we need to beat to be the best always have better players. College football is simply a matter of who has the best players and AR does not and will not ever have enough better players to win at a championship level. And that makes Arkansas just like about 40 other teams, good enough to make a run every now and then, but usually going to be 7 or 8 wins a year.

Spot on Wilson. Spot on. There is NO reason we can't win 7-9 games a year and, twice a decade, have a shot at a SEC title when the classes align right and do it all without cheating at Ole Miss levels.

No doubt, that should be our baseline. I don't think anyone suggests different.

What nonsense! Long/Bielema defenders? Who are they? I don't think Bielema has a single defender on this site at this point. Defending Jeff Long is an entirely different matter. He didn't lose to Missouri or TCU. He hired a successful coach from a P-5 program and that coach is not doing very well. The question is what is to be done and I don't think the original poster offered much guidance there so why would anyone reply? The Op basically said: try to win at a reasonable level while not getting into the dirt in order to do it. I'm not sure who would argue with that except the Petrino supporters but it doesn't move the ball very far down the field if the question is how to do that.

We'll see if the money is there to make a change. Lanny is correct, "we" don't pay $15.4m, which in reality is closer to $20m with the coordinators guaranteed salaries and assistant coaches who have multiple year contracts.

Everyone can keep ignoring it, but the one constant as long as I can remember, which is about 1975, is the teams we need to beat to be the best always have better players. College football is simply a matter of who has the best players and AR does not and will not ever have enough better players to win at a championship level. And that makes Arkansas just like about 40 other teams, good enough to make a run every now and then, but usually going to be 7 or 8 wins a year.

Well, he actually had two decent runs. The first being on the backs of Stoerner, Burlesworth, Lucas, etc. But the rest of what you said is accurate.

Under JFB in the '60s and early '70s, we DID have athletes that were as good as anyone else in the country. I'm sure 99% of the D-1 schools back then would have traded rosters to get our teams from '64-'65 and again from '69-'70. But for whatever reason (and the recruiting of black players may have something to do with this since we were behind the northern schools in doing it, and perhaps didn't do it as aggressively as the SEC schools after that), we've been operating from behind since then.

We'll see if the money is there to make a change. Lanny is correct, "we" don't pay $15.4m, which in reality is closer to $20m with the coordinators guaranteed salaries and assistant coaches who have multiple year contracts.

Assuming you are correct, how smart is it to put a provision in a contract that the University couldn't afford to exercise if it wanted to?

What nonsense! Long/Bielema defenders? Who are they? I don't think Bielema has a single defender on this site at this point. Defending Jeff Long is an entirely different matter. He didn't lose to Missouri or TCU. He hired a successful coach from a P-5 program and that coach is not doing very well. The question is what is to be done and I don't think the original poster offered much guidance there so why would anyone reply? The Op basically said: try to win at a reasonable level while not getting into the dirt in order to do it. I'm not sure who would argue with that except the Petrino supporters but it doesn't move the ball very far down the field if the question is how to do that.

Well, you for one.

Which is in direct opposition to what Long said. He posed it as a binary choice: 'win at all costs', or 'cheat'. He completely deflects his responsibility to hold his coaches accountable for their performance. Instead, he blasts those who are unhappy as willing to cheat, lie, or do whatever to win. There is middle ground there, in spite of you being too blind to see it.

We'll see if the money is there to make a change. Lanny is correct, "we" don't pay $15.4m, which in reality is closer to $20m with the coordinators guaranteed salaries and assistant coaches who have multiple year contracts.

Everyone can keep ignoring it, but the one constant as long as I can remember, which is about 1975, is the teams we need to beat to be the best always have better players. College football is simply a matter of who has the best players and AR does not and will not ever have enough better players to win at a championship level. And that makes Arkansas just like about 40 other teams, good enough to make a run every now and then, but usually going to be 7 or 8 wins a year.

Well, he actually had two decent runs. The first being on the backs of Stoerner, Burlesworth, Lucas, etc. But the rest of what you said is accurate.

Under JFB in the '60s and early '70s, we DID have athletes that were as good as anyone else in the country. I'm sure 99% of the D-1 schools back then would have traded rosters to get our teams from '64-'65 and again from '69-'70. But for whatever reason (and the recruiting of black players may have something to do with this since we were behind the northern schools in doing it, and perhaps didn't do it as aggressively as the SEC schools after that), we've been operating from behind since then.

Again, just the pattern, 2 years when they had teams full of in state talent with a couple out of state studs. Same type of teams Holtz, Hatfield, Ford, HDN, and BP had their most success with. HS football in Ar has produced precious little elite talent in the last 6 or 7 years. A few very good players, yes, but not enough to build a winner with.

I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

the 98 team was Ford's, and was full of quality linemen on both sides, and had several instate players plus a QB from Tx. The 99 team was not that great. And we all know the teams of his most remember were the MJ and Dmac teams.

the 98 team was Ford's, and was full of quality linemen on both sides, and had several instate players plus a QB from Tx. The 99 team was not that great. And we all know the teams of his most remember were the MJ and Dmac teams.

Say what you want but Nutt with all of his warts (and he had more than plenty of them) won at least 8 games in 6 of his 10 years as Hog HC. Bret has yet to win 8 regular season games in a year at Arkansas and this is his 5 season.

I don't blame Wilson and everyone else for being frustrated. On the other hand, the massive shift in expectations seems like an overcorrection under the circumstances.

I agree that we came out flat and so did the crowd. I agree that we got pushed around by a Big 12 team. I agree that Austin Allen doesn't look remotely like the QB he was in 2016, particularly the first half of the year. His mechanics are terrible, and his demeanor is worse. I agree the offensive line is partly to blame for that, and so are the receivers/tight ends. I agree that special teams are a problem.

However, with the obvious problems on offense and special teams, we were a few plays from beating a senior laden team ranked 23rd in the country. It was 14-7 with 3:51 left in the game when a pass interference penalty (on a covered receiver and overthrown ball) kept Arkansas from getting the ball back with a chance to tie or win the game. It was 28-20 TCU last year when we got the ball back with 2:05 left. AA led the team to a score in 4 plays and caught a pass for the two point conversion. We won in OT. There were other chances Saturday. Had Austin Cantrell had better presence of mind he would have caught Allen's pass in the end zone to tie the game. Our defense competed hard for four quarters and played well. They are much improved. They kept us in the game on an off-day for the offense.

I get that if TCU were an isolated incident, Wilson and others wouldn't be so frustrated. Arkansas has been outscored 70-0 in the second half by its last three P5 opponents. That is not good. But - I also think Arkansas has players and coaches who have proven they can beat ranked teams. They did it three times last year alone. About half the teams Bret Bielema has faced have been ranked at the time we have played them. We play a very tough schedule year in and year out. That is not going to change.

Arkansas's players work hard year round. College football is a full-time and then some job. The coaching staff works hard year round. They make a lot of money but it comes at a sacrifice in terms of time they have available for their families. Everyone wants to win.

The Razorbacks compete at the highest level of college football. They just lost a game they were in until the end to a ranked opponent full of seniors. They were the underdog. We owe it to the players to not give up on them before the conference season starts. There are half a dozen games left on the schedule that could go either way. They need to feel like the fanbase is behind them.

That's all well and good Wilson, you know as well as I, that barring a collapse of monumental proportions, it's not happening until after 2018.

As in January 1st, 2018? That's the day the buyout drops to 11 mil.

Letting a lame duck go for another season would equate to the same terms financially. The only difference would be that you allow the poor performance to take the program one year further down which makes the rebuild more expensive.

Not renewing the WMM contract would create another 3 mil over the course of the buyout period that would bring this well into the realm of feasibility.

If it were truly about fiscal issues, January would be the trigger. Long is letting us know that he is going to continue to do what Broyles did before him and what he is currently being asked though. So don't expect any deviations.

Assuming you are correct, how smart is it to put a provision in a contract that the University couldn't afford to exercise if it wanted to?

Oh, they can "afford" it, with lots of support from the Foundation, and I know you know what that means. That $20m is the redo for the upper deck of BWA. Who am I kidding, that's probably $80m minimum these days.....

Say what you want but Nutt with all of his warts (and he had more than plenty of them) won at least 8 games in 6 of his 10 years as Hog HC. Bret has yet to win 8 regular season games in a year at Arkansas and this is his 5 season.

Nutt woulda wore Korless Marshall out on the stretch play instead of running him off like BB.......guy was a goober but he'd ride a mule when he got one.

Letting a lame duck go for another season would equate to the same terms financially. The only difference would be that you allow the poor performance to take the program one year further down which makes the rebuild more expensive.

Not renewing the WMM contract would create another 3 mil over the course of the buyout period that would bring this well into the realm of feasibility.

If it were truly about fiscal issues, January would be the trigger. Long is letting us know that he is going to continue to do what Broyles did before him and what he is currently being asked though. So don't expect any deviations.

They aren't going to let him sign a class in Dec and fire him Jan 1st, you know Long better than that. I'm talking about the season of 2018.

I don't blame Wilson and everyone else for being frustrated. On the other hand, the massive shift in expectations seems like an overcorrection under the circumstances.

I agree that we came out flat and so did the crowd. I agree that we got pushed around by a Big 12 team. I agree that Austin Allen doesn't look remotely like the QB he was in 2016, particularly the first half of the year. His mechanics are terrible, and his demeanor is worse. I agree the offensive line is partly to blame for that, and so are the receivers/tight ends. I agree that special teams are a problem.

However, with the obvious problems on offense and special teams, we were a few plays from beating a senior laden team ranked 23rd in the country. It was 14-7 with 3:51 left in the game when a pass interference penalty (on a covered receiver and overthrown ball) kept Arkansas from getting the ball back with a chance to tie or win the game. It was 28-20 TCU last year when we got the ball back with 2:05 left. AA led the team to a score in 4 plays and caught a pass for the two point conversion. We won in OT. There were other chances Saturday. Had Austin Cantrell had better presence of mind he would have caught Allen's pass in the end zone to tie the game. Our defense competed hard for four quarters and played well. They are much improved. They kept us in the game on an off-day for the offense.

I get that if TCU were an isolated incident, Wilson and others wouldn't be so frustrated. Arkansas has been outscored 70-0 in the second half by its last three P5 opponents. That is not good. But - I also think Arkansas has players and coaches who have proven they can beat ranked teams. They did it three times last year alone. About half the teams Bret Bielema has faced have been ranked at the time we have played them. We play a very tough schedule year in and year out. That is not going to change.

Arkansas's players work hard year round. College football is a full-time and then some job. The coaching staff works hard year round. They make a lot of money but it comes at a sacrifice in terms of time they have available for their families. Everyone wants to win.

The Razorbacks compete at the highest level of college football. They just lost a game they were in until the end to a ranked opponent full of seniors. They were the underdog. We owe it to the players to not give up on them before the conference season starts. There are half a dozen games left on the schedule that could go either way. They need to feel like the fanbase is behind them.

Excellent post, but it will fall on deaf ears here, they want his head on a pike!

Logged

hogcard1964

If Long's gripe or defense of this asinine statement was in line with Arkansas actually being a dirty/"win at all" type of program through the years, then I could understand him saying something like this. But we've always been pretty clean in relation to a lot of other SEC programs. I also remember we were always pretty upstanding in our old SWC days as well.

Him coming out with this nonsense when the football program is down is an obvious indicator of him attempting to "polish the turd" that is currently Arkansas football.

I may be misreading him, but I don't see Bielema being the kind of guy who sticks around for the "win or else" season.

If we win 7 or 8 games this season, things will quieten down. If not, life is going to get very uncomfortable for him and his family. That is something he has never experienced as a head coach.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Head coaches need thick skin. I have to think Bielema's skin is thicker than that. Jen's? Maybe not, but she is going to stand by her man, and that's a good thing for a coach's wife. Briella will never remember it.